No. 2-09- 0439 File d: 8-9-10

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ NANCY PRIGNANO, Indivi duall y an d as ) Ap

peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court Mot her and Next Friend of Marissa L. ) o f D u P ag e C o un t y. Prign ano, a Mi nor, and as Trustee of the ) Tr ust for t he Be nefit o f Mariss a L. Pr ignano ) and Dan i el l e L. Pr i gna no, ) ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 04-- CH--1227 ) LOUIS H. PRIGNANO, Indi vi dually and as ) Independe

nt Executor o f the Estate of George ) L. Prign ano, Deceased, and as Trustee of the ) Prignano Chi

ldren' s Trust s, ) ) Defend ant -Ap pellant ) ) (Th e Estateof

Da ni el l e L . Pri gnan o, ) Ho no r ab le Dece ase d, by

Nan cy Prigna no, Adm i nistrator, ) Tho mas C. Dud geo n, Pl ai ntif f /Interve nor-A ppel l ee). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CESC HO STO K

de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: T his case concerns the disposition of George Pr ign ano's busi nessand personal

in terests after his death i

n Jul y 2000. George owned sev eral business es w ith his br ot her , Lo uis Pr ignano , t he de f en da n t. Geo rg e's se co nd wife, Nanc y, allege s t hat Geo rg e and Lo uis ag re ed t hat , u po n t he de ath of ei ther o f t he m, t he su rvivo rwo uld buy ou t t he o t her 's shar e o f the business es fro m his heirs, u sing t he proceeds from l

if e i nsuran ce poli ci es purchased

for t hat pur po se. Nanc y also a lleges t hat she a nd Lo uis had an

oral agree men t to t he sam e ef f ect, i.e. , t hat Lo uis wo uld p ur chas e Ge or ge's shar e o f theNo. 2-- 09--0439

-2-

compan ie s from her i

n exch ange for the insurance proceeds. How ever, sh e al l eg estha

t, up on Geo rg e's death, Louis (wh o was the executor of George 's es tate) ke pt bot h Geo rg e's sha re of t he busi ness es and the in

surance pr o ce ed s, wit ho ut t elling he r . Sh e b r o ug ht su it ag ain st Lo uis o n be ha lf of hersel f an d her chi ldren, assertin

g the sam e cl ai m un der a variety of l

egal theories, i

ncl udin g fraud, breach of f i duc i ary duty , b rea ch of co nt ra ct , a nd unju st enr ichment. Afte r a bench t rial, t he cir cu it courto f D u P ag e C o un t y foun d i n th e p l ai nti f f s' f av or on the br each of f i duc i ary duty , b rea ch of
con tra ct, and un

jus t enrich me nt clai m s, a

nd en tere d j udg

men t i n th ei r f av or i n th e a moun t of $615,324.50 ($450,000 as a uni tary reco very on al

l of those claims, and $16 5, 324 .5 0 in pr ejudg ment in terest on t hat re co ver y). L ou is app ealed , a rg uing tha t Na nc y ha d n ot prov ed he r cl ai m s f ora v ari ety of re as on s. W e af

f i rm i n pa rt a n d vac ate i n pa rt. FAC TUAL A

ND PROCEDURAL

BACK GROUND The brothe

rs we re b usi ne ss p artne

rs ov er a pe

ri od of y ears . The y share d eq ually the
o wn er ship of two corpo rations, Sunri se Homes and Rai nbow Install

ations, an d were equal

partners in the 710 Buildi

ng P ar t ne r ship . The brothers were customers of Ch arles Ken ny, a sel f-desc

rib ed "i nsuran ce/fi nan ci al person." Ken

ny testifi ed that, in 1985, George a nd hed i scus se d a

bu y-s el l or "busi nesscon ti nu ati on agreem ent," by whi ch he meant an ag re ement set t ing t he t er ms on w hich the busi nesswo uld co nt inu e int he ev en t o f t he de at h o rdis ab ili ty of a par t ner or shar eho lder . T he agr eement could b e fun

ded wi th in surance proceeds, am

ong ot her thi

ngs. He gav

e George a

book (provided by an i nsuran ce com pa n y ) c on tai n i n g a b l an k s am pl e b us i n es s c on ti n ua ti on ag re em en t. In March 1985, the brothers to ok out two lif e insur ance po licies, o ne o n eac h bro t her 's li fe. Each policy was for $60 ,0 00 a nd

na med Ra inb o w I ns t alla t io ns as t he be ne fic iar y. It was Kenny's und er st anding that the proceeds would be us ed to fun d a b usi ne ss c onti nua tion agree men t. In N ove mber 1 990 , t heNo. 2-- 09--0439

-3-

brothe rs to ok out t wo mo r e p o lici es t hr o ug h Ke nny, each i n the am ount o f $50,000. These pol ic ie s nam ed Sunri se Homes

as the ben

efi ci ary. K enn y b elie ved tha t Sun ri se Hom espai d the p rem

i um s on these po lic i es. In 1 999 , G eo rg e had a co nver sat ion wit h Kenny in which Geo rg e sa id t hat t he brot hers' accountant, Ralph An tignol i, h ad advised them

that, in l igh t o f the i ncreased v

al ue of t he companies, they

would ne ed substantial

ly more i nsuran ce proceeds to fun

d a bu y-s el l agree men t f or t he co mpanies. At George's request, Kenn y h el ped the brothers purchase two l arg er p ol i ci esf rom Nor th Am erica n i n the am ount o f $500,000 each . Agai n, both poli

ci es nam ed SunriseHo mes as t he be ne fic iar y. Kenny was p re sent when bo t h bro t her s signed t he ap plic at io ns, an d h e w it ne ss ed t he ir si gna tures. L ater, 710

Bui l di ng P artne rsh i p was adde d asa b enef

i ciary of these pol i cies. Kathl een Stei nku l l er, a re al

tor who was

cl ose to George

f or severa l y

ears, tes tif

ie d that George had a closerel

ati ons hi p w i th h i s chi l dre n f rom his se cond

marriage a

nd wan ted to ma ke sure t ha t t he y we r e p r o vid ed fo rin t he ev en t o f his d ea t h. Ge o r ge t o ld he rt ha t he ha d p r o vid ed fo rhis chi ldren through in

surance. Geo rge also t o ld he r , wit hina ye ar be fo r e h is d ea t h, t ha t he ha d a bu yse ll ag re em en t wi th Lo uis. Acco rd ing

to Ste i n kul l er , G eor

ge sa i d th at, i f y ou h av e a com pa n y wi th part ners, you ha

ve to pr ot ect your partner if somethi ng ha ppens to you. As a res

ult, Stein kull er testifi ed, Ge o r ge an d L o ui s " alw ays were tal ki ng to an i ns ura nc e m an i t se em ed ." Van es sa Pal adi no, t he se cr et ar y fo rt he br o t he r s' b us ine ss es , t es t ified t ha t t he br o t he r s d isc us se d t he iss ue o f a b uy- se ll agr eement more th

an onc e i n h er pres en ce , an d s he be l i eved tha t on one occ as i on Ken n y wa s pre se

n t. Ant ign o li , t he ac co unt ant for t he br ot her s' bus inesses , t est ifi ed t hat "o ver t he year s" he ha d
comm ented to bot h brothers that it would probab ly be a good idea to get a b uy- se ll agr eement and f und i t wi th som e i ns uran ce.No. 2-- 09--0439

-4-

George died on Jul

y 12, 2000. An

tignol i testi fi ed t hat , a s o f shor t ly before Geo rg e's d eat h, the n et va l ue of Sun ri se H ome s wa s ap

proxi matel y $1.2 m i l l i on. Lo uis wasappoi

nted the exe cutor of G eorge' s estate. Geo rg e's wil l be ne fit t ed Lo ui s, Na nc y, t he two children f

rom Geor ge's fi

rst marr i ag e, a nd Da ni el l e a nd Ma ri ss a, th e tw o ch i l dre n f rom his
ma rriage wit h Nanc y. It co nt ained s pec ifi c beq ues t s o f money and prop erty to the ch i l dre n f rom his firs t mar r iag e. I t be qu ea t he d t o Na nc y "a ll my int er es t " in t he ho me he h ad shared wi

th her at445 Nort h Eli zabeth in Lombard, along wi

th "any rem

ain in g cash orIRA a cco unt s." It bequ eat hed t he "a ss ets of Sunri se Homes

Inc. and an

y l if e i nsuran ce hel d by any co[mpany

] we may own" to Louis. The wi ll directed that the resi due of th e e sta te be dist ribut ed 5 0% t o N ancy, 25% t o a t ru st for t he chi ldren fro m his fi

rst marr iage ( of w hich Lo uis wa s t he t ru st ee) , a nd 25% t o a t ru st for Danielle and Mariss a (of wh i ch Na n cy an d L ouis w ere c otru ste es ). L ouis f i l ed an i n v en tory of th e e sta te o n August 17, 200 0, listing amo ng the assets: a half i nterest in Sunrise Ho mes, valued at $20 0,0 00; a ha lf inter est "ca sh co nt ribut ion o f Rainbow Insu latio n [ sic ]," val ued at $7, 500 ; and a h alf in t er es t in 710 B uil di

ng P artne rsh i p, va l ued a t $200,00 0. Nancy t est ifi ed t hat , in t he we eks follow ing Geo rg e's d eat h, she was ups et and c onfu sed , a nd she l ooked to Loui s to manage G eorge' s estate an d m ake d ecisions b eca

use he wasthe exe cutor. She testifi ed th at a we ek or tw o af

ter Ge org e' s dea

th sh e h ad a te l ep h on e c on

v er sa ti on wi th L o uis in whi ch Lo uis st at ed t ha t he an d G eo r ge ha d n o t wa nt ed an y wive s inv o lv ed in t he bus inesses , a nd Nancy st at ed t hat she d id no t want t o be involved in t he bu sine ss es . Na nc y t es t ified t ha t Lo uis t o ld her t ha t t hat was what t he i

nsurance proceeds wer e for, t o buy out her interest in the busin ess es . Nancy testifi ed that she and Louis agreed duri ng thi s conversa

tion thatshe w ou ld give Lo uis t he share of the busi

ne sse s tha t had be l onge d to George i

n return f or the proc eeds

f rom th e i ns uran ce.No. 2-- 09--0439

-5-

Nor th A meri ca n i ni ti al l y rej ec ted the cl ai m f orthe $500,000 li

fe i nsuran ce poli cy in Geo rg e's
nam e, apparently

on the basis that George

had not discl

osed that he

wasa sm oker. On Jul

y 24, 2000,
an in surance clai m s ag en t me t wi th Na ncy and Louis to i

nterv i ew them . A

few da ys ear lier, Ke nny had compl eted a written statement that sai d that, at the tim e of the 1999 poli

cy applic ation, George had indicat ed t hat he wa s no t a smo ker but smok ed c igar s, a nd that George had approachedKenny to purchase the pol

ic y " on advi

ce from accountant to fun

d buy and sell agreem

ent." Nanc y to ld t he age nt that Geo rg e smo ked only o cca siona lly. D ur ing t he i n ter v i ew , L ouis state d th

at " at th i s p oi n t" he an d N an cy w er e b o t h p ar t ne r s in t he firm t ha t wa s t he be ne ficia ry of th e pol i cy, i.e. , Sunrise Homes. A

t tri al, N an cy testi f i ed th at h er oral ag re em en t with Lo uis wa s why she a t t ende d t he meet ingwit h t he insu r an ce cla ims a ge nt an d t ha t she wo uld not have done so if she h ad not belie

ved that sh e had an i ntere st i n the i ns uran ce proc eeds
. Lo uis and K

enn y testi fi ed that, about August 21, 2000, Louis cam e by whi le Ken ny was meet ingwith Na

ncy in her hom e. Nanc y's bro t her was also pr ese nt . Lo uis bro ught wit h him a blank copy of a sam ple buy -sell a greeme nt from the book that Kenny

had gi v en the br othe rs yea rs ag o. Lo uis t es t ifi ed t hat he wa nt ed t o r eac h an ag re ement wit h Nanc y abou t t he o wner ship o f the compan ie s. He showed he

r the blank b

uy-s ell a greeme nt and asked h

er, "if we can do thi s, do yo u wan t to do t his? " Na

ncy read th rough the a greem en t and sai d okay
. Lo uis testi f

i ed th at h e retu rned to hi s of f i ce an d, a t so me p oi

n t, dir ec t ed Pa lad ino t o fill

in the blank buy- sell agr eement he had sho wn Na ncy. H e inst ru ct ed P aladino re gar ding ho w t o fill i n t he bl anksand g ave he r t he amo unt s o f the in surance proceeds to put in . The documen t stat ed that it was
an agreem ent between George and Louis as the "stockholders" of

Sunri se Homes , 710 Bui ldi ng Pa rtnersh ip, an

d Rai nbow In stal l ati ons . The agre em

en t prov i de d that u

pon the de ath of ei the r ofNo. 2-- 09--0439

-6-

t he m, the survivor would have the right to p urchase the de ce de nt' s h al f of the com pa ni esf or $600,000, and t hat t he agreem ent would b e fun

ded by three li fe i nsuran ce poli ci es: two John Hancock polici es i n th e a moun ts of $5 0, 00 0 a nd $6 0, 00 0, an d a No r t h Ame r ica n p o licy fo r$5 00 , 00 0. Lo uis then signed t he do cument as se cr et ar y, and he as ked an ac qua intanc e who happ ened t o be in the of fi ce at t he t ime t o wit ne ss his s ign at ur e. Pa lad ino als o wit ne ss ed t he do cu men t at his request . Lo uis in structed Palad ino t o s ign t he do cument using G eo rg e's na me, a nd she d id so , a ltho ugh s he l ate rstat ed that she f

elt this was "wrong." Geor ge's "si gnature" listed hi

m as the presi de n t of

th e three compan

ie s. The documen

t was dated Octo ber 1, 1999, sev eral months be f ore Geo rg e's d eat h. Lo uis testifi

ed that, after his

atto rney to ld h im that t he agreem

ent could n

ot be used, h

e put it aside. Several years befo re hi s de at h, G eo rg e had pur chas ed fr om S unr ise Ho mes so me vaca nt propert y (ev

entually designated as 445 No rt h Elizabet h), on w hich he and Nanc y built a ho me. At
so me point, however , the prope rty ha d b een r esub di vi de d, a nd a p ortion of

the prop erty wa s n ot transferred

to George and rem

ai ned titled under Sunrise Homes . Louis testif ie d that, although i

t was no t r efle ct ed in

t he bu y-s ell agr eement he had ask ed P aladino t o fill i n aft er Geo rg e's d eat h, he and Nancy had a ve r ba l ag r ee men t t ha t Na nc y wo uld use the insurance proceeds to purchase from Sunris e Homes the rem

ai ni ng portion of 445 Nort h Eliz abeth. Thus, i n Loui s's v

ie w, his verba l agr eement wi th Nanc y was t hat he wo uld g et Geo rg e's share of the busi nesses and the i

nsurance proceeds, and she woul d get her home . Jo hn Ha n cock p ai d ou t th e b en ef i ts unde r t he t wo smaller insur ance po licies by August 2000. In May 2001, Louis settled the c la im with North Am

erica n for $335,000. Louis testif ie d t hat none of t he pr o ce ed s fr o m t he t hr ee insu r an ce po licie s wa s ev er p aid t o Na nc y and t ha t he did no t t ell Nancy th at he h ad rec ei ve d the i ns ura nc e p roce ed s. Loui s d

i d n ot l i st th e i ns ura nc e a s a n ass et ofNo. 2-- 09--0439

-7-

Geo rg e's es t at e o n a ny o f t he doc um en ts h e f i l ed asexecutor. Loui s f

i l ed a f i na l ac cou nti ng on Decem ber 18 , 20 01 , s h owi

n g th at: as to Su nrise H omes , o ne half of a ll out st anding shares of stock (val ued at $186,285) had been

dis tributed to Louis; as to Rai nbow Install

ations, $7,500 (one h

al f of t he co mpany's cas h on ha nd ) had been "paid by Louis H. Pri

gnan o t o t he Estate"; and as to 710 Building Par t ner ship, "all pro per t y was in land t ru st wit h beneficiar y being Louis H. Pri

gnan o an d n ot part of E st at e. " The pr op er t y at 4 45 N or t h Elizabet h was t o be co nve yed in k in d t o N ancy, and Nancy was also listed as r ece iving $1, 000 of p er so nal pr op er t y (co nveyed in kind) and a spo use 's
awar d of $45,000. Dani el lea nd Marissa each recei ved a m in or's award of $5,000. George's two chi ldren f rom hi s f irst m arriage ea ch recei ved spe cific beque st s o f app ro ximately $39 ,0 00 in ca sh, a nd
one chi ld rece iv ed some real

estate. T he estate was cl osedon Febr uar y 15, 200 2. Nanc y fi led no cla ims a ga inst t he es t at e a nd did n ot f i l e a n y ob j ec ti on to the in ven to ry or fi nal accountin

g. Nancy testifi ed t ha t , at t he t ime the estate closed, she b elie ved that Louis

had not yet recei

ved the i nsuran ce pr oc eed s and t hat he would honor thei r oral agreem

ent. In March

20 02 , the p orti

on of 44 5 N orth El izab eth own

ed b y Sun ri se H ome s wa s con

veyed to Nan

cy . Nancy testifi ed that, in A

pril 2003, she h

ad a c on v er sa ti on wi th Deni se W ea ser, the s i ster of George and L ou is, in whi ch De n i se to l d he

r that L oui s had rec ei

ve d the i ns uran ce proc eeds . In August 200 3, Nanc y rece ived an a nonymo us let t er t elling her the same thi

ng. Nancy f

il ed suit agains

t Lo uis on Sept emb er 1, 20 04. The o rigi nal complai nt alleged the exist en ce o f t he o r al b uy- se ll agr eement bet wee n t he br ot her s and alle ged that Louis com mi tt ed fraud an

d breach ed his f i duci ary dut ies. T he co mplaintwasam ended f rom ti me to tim e. Dan i el l e di ed i n Jan uary 2006. Nancy

was appoin ted as the adm

in is trat or o f h er estate, and on May 18, 2006, she was gr ant ed lea ve t o int er vene i n th e c as e on be ha l f of Da nie lle's es t at e, an d file d a n int er ve ning co mpla int
. T he firs t t ime t hat anyNo. 2-- 09--0439

-8-

of the compl

ai nts alle ged the existence of an oral contract between Nancy and Loui s was on May

18, 2007. By the tim e of trial, the clai

ms agai nst Louis in cl uded fraud, b

reach of fi duci ary duty, breach of t he oral con tra ct b etw een

th e b roth er s ( b rough t on a th i rd -p ar ty beneficiar y theo ry), bre ach o f the oral contract betwe en

Nan cy and Louis, an

d un j ust en ri ch men t. On Jul y 18, 2008, f

oll owing a l en gth y tri al , th e tri

al cou rt f oun d that N an

cy ha d n ot proved her fraud or thi rd- pa rty be ne f i ci ary cl ai m s, b ut f oun d i n h er f av oron the remai

ni ng cl ai ms . The trial courtbe ga

n b y f i nd i ng tha t the br othe rs ha d e nte red i nto a n or al bu y-s el l agree men t, th e terms of whi ch were accurat ely

reflected in the false written "agreem ent" that Louis created athi s off ic e after Geo rg e's dea t h. T he t rial co ur t also fou nd t hat an o ra l agr eement exist ed be t wee n Nanc y and Louis, to th e e f f ec t th at sh e w oul

d g i v e h i m h er por ti on of Ge o r ge 's f

o rmer sha r e o f t he bu sine ss es in exch ange f or t he i nsuran ce proceeds. The trial

court then

rule d o n e ac h o f Na nc y's s pe cific cla ims and entered judgm

en t on t h ose

cl ai m s: a rec ov er

y of $3 00 ,00 0 to N an

cy i n di v i du al l y , $7 5,0 00 to Nan cy as n ex t fri end of Mari ssa , and $75,0 00 to Nan

cy as a dm i nistrator of D an

i el l e' s estate. The reaf ter, Lo uis fil ed a po st t rial mot ion se eking r eco nsider at ion o f vario us a spe ct s o f the j udgm en t. Nancy fi led m ot ions seeki

ng costs and pr ejudgm

ent interest from

February 15, 200 2 ( t he da te that Ge org e' s e sta

te w as cl ose d) , th rough th e date o f t he jud gme nt , an d r eq ue st ing lea ve t o file
am ended com

pla in ts seeki ng such i nte res t. In addi ti on, on O ctob er 2 1, 2 008 , Na nc y f i l ed a m oti on f or addi tur . On Feb ruary 17, 200 9, the

tria l courtruled i

n f avor o f Nancy

and again

st Lo uis on m

ost of the pendi ng m ot ions but stated t hat a fi

nal order wo uld n

ot be en tered until

two weeks later. On F ebruary 24 , 20 09 , N an

cy f i l ed am en de d c om pl ai n ts, i n th e ch i ef ca se an d a s a dm i n i strator o f Danielle's estate, seekin

g prejudgm

ent in terest. On March

3, 2009, Louis f

il ed a m oti on to v ac ate that part of the Feb

ruary 17 order

awardin g prejudgm

ent in terest t o Dani elle 's estate. On March 24, 2009,No. 2-- 09--0439

-9-

t he trial court entered

an order (1) clarify

in g that its Feb

ruary 17 order had granted Nan cy l ea v e to file both of the m

ost recent amended c omplai nts (as adm

in is trat or as we ll as o n be ha lf of he rse lf and Mari ssa) and clarifying the bre akd ow n of t he da mages awa rd s in its Ju ly 18, 2 008 , o rd er ; (2 ) g ra nt ing
costs in the am ount o f $2, 893; (3) gra

nti ng Na nc y pre j udg men t i nte res t i n th e total am oun t of $162,431.50 ($ 108 ,2 87. 68 o n her individual damag es a war d and $27 ,0 71. 91 o n t he award for each of her dau ght er s); a nd

(4) f i ndi ng th at there wa s n o j us t re as on

to de l ay en f orc em en t or a pp ea l of i ts order. Loui

s f i l ed a ti mel y noti ce of appe al
. AN AL YSIS Lo uis rai se s e i gh t arg um en ts on appe al , attack

i ng both the tri al cou rt' s f i nd i ng of l i ab i l i ty on t he cl ai ms for breach

of f iduc ia ry duty, breach of

contract, and un

jus t enrich me nt, and its rul

in gs related to the a

ward of prej udgm

en t in terest. W e take e ach

argum en t in turn. Breach of Fiduci ary Duties The t rial co ur t fou nd t hat Lo uis o wed Nanc y and h er chi ldren fi duci ary duties i

n three
ca pa ci ti es : a s exe cu

torof George's wi

ll , as cotr ustee of her ch

il dren's trust under the wi

ll , and asan off i cer a nd p artne r i n the busi ne sse s the y were to recei ve un der the wil

l. The trial court found that t he bro t her s' b uy- sel

l agree men t "requ i red L ou i n h i s f i duci ary capa ci tie s as a corporate of

f i cer, partneran d e x ecutor

to hon orthe buy -sell a greeme nt and to t rade the in

surance proceeds h

e recei ved in ex ch an ge fo rNa nc y's a nd t he ch ildr en 's in he r it ed int er es t s int he bus inesses ." The trial court further found that Loui s breach

ed hi s f iduc ia ry duti es by

fai li ng to pro vi

de the pl ai

ntif fs with the i nsuran ce proceeds de sp i

te h i s a ss erti on of con trol ove r th ei r s ha re of the busi ness es. On

appeal , Louis argues t ha t t he t rial co ur t er re d in finding tha t t he br ot her s had an o ra l agr eement , a nd in finding tha t th e pla in la nguage of the

wil l di d not absolv

e hi m of any dutieswi th re sp ec t to the insurance proceeds.No. 2-- 09--0439

-10-

As t o t he first ar gument , t he i ss ue s of whet her a co nt ra ct exist ed, t he pa rt ies' inte nt in forming it, and it s t er ms are all ques t ions o f fact t o be det er mined by the trier of f ac t. He dl un d & Ha nd ley, LLC v. Boa

rd of Trustees of Comm

uni ty Colle ge Di strict No. 508 , 376 Ill . App. 3d 200 , 205 (2 007). We review the trial

court 's f in din gs of fact with def

erence and wil

l reverse onl

y i f they are against

t he
man if est wei ght of the evi

dence, that

is, "t he o ppo site co nclusio n is clear ly evident o r t he findingis
ar bit r ar y, unreasonab le , or no t based in ev iden ce." Sam our, Inc . v. B oard

of El ection Com

m i ssi oners of the Ci ty of Chi cago , 22 4 I ll. 2 d 5 30 , 54 4 ( 20 07 )
. Lo uis argu es th at th e tr i al cou rt' s f i n di n gsas to t he exi stenceand terms of the brot hers' oral agreemen t are a gainst t he m

ani fest wei ght of the evi

dence because there

wasno di

rect ev i den ce of the a greem en t's existen ce, the brothers

never r ed uce d t he agree men t to writi ng d uri ng George' s l

i f eti me, an d George 's

wil l did not ref

er to the ag

reem en t. Review ing

t he r eco rd , w e find t hat t her e is ample evid ence sup po rt ingt he t rial co ur t 's fi ndi ngs re gar ding the exist e nc e a nd t er ms o f t he br o t he r s' o r al b uy- se ll ag r ee men t . Ke nny, Ant ign o li, Palad ino and Stein

kull er all testifi ed that t hey had h eard George (o r both George and Louis) ref er to such an agree men t. Moreover, t he b

rot hers repeatedl

y purch ased i nsuran ce tha t Ke nn y un de rs tood
was fo rt he pu r

po se o f fun din g t he ir b uy- se ll ag r ee men t . I n a dd it io n, Na nc y t es t ified t ha t Lo uis t o ld her that the purpos e of

the i ns uran ce was so that he

could bu y out George' s hei

rs'i ntere s t s in the busi ness es af ter G eorge' s de at h. T his evidenc e wa s su bject t o t he t rial co ur t 's de t er minatio ns re gar ding credi

bi l i ty. In a ben ch trial, the trial

court si ts as the trier of f

act, hearin

g the wi tnessesand
re viewing the direct presen tation of the evi

den ce, and i

t t heref ore is i n the b est position to make
cred i b i l i ty determ i na tions an d f actual f i ndi ngs . In re Marri age of

Matchen , 372 Ill . App. 3d 937, 946 (2007 ). Th

i s c our t wi l l n ot rewe i gh

th e ev i den ce

or s ec on d- gu es s th

e tr i al cou rt' s cre di b i l i ty deter mi nations, esp ecially where , a s her e, t he ev ide nc e a mply suppor ts t he trial court's conclusi ons.No. 2-- 09--0439

1 It is doubtful that George had the power t o c onve y Sunr ise Ho mes's co rp or at e as set s (w hich, after all, b el onged to S unri se Homes rathert ha n t o him p er so na lly) v ia a pr o visio n in hi s will . See Be r gh eg er v. Bo yle , 258 Ill . App. 3d 413, 416 (19 94)(a w i l l ca nn ot con ve y prop erty tha t doe s n ot belong to the test ato r). T hus, it is possibl e that t he bequestt o L ou is of S unr ise Ho mes's asse t s and t he insura nce p ro cee ds ( which we re likewise a sset s o f the business es na med as beneficiar ies in the polici es, no t Ge o r ge 's p er so na l as se t s) wa s ine ffec t ive t o co nve y go o d t it le in those assets t o Lo uis. Howev er, the parties h

ave n ot expl ored t hi s argum

ent at any length o n a

ppe al , an d s o wedo n

ot pursue i t fur ther. -11- The trial court 's f in din gs regardin

g the existence an

d terms of the b

rot hers' oral agreem

ent ar e not agai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Lo uis al so argues that the words of the wi l l were the s ole matter be f

ore the court , and that t he pl ai n m ea ni ng of thos e w ords

coul d n ot be varied b

y e xtrinsi c evi

dence, such

asthe ev i de nc e of t he brothers' agreem

ent. See In

reEs tate of G oo dkind , 35 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d 60 7, 61 4 ( 20 05 ) ( "e xt r insic evi dence ma y n ot be used

to co n tra di ct t he clea r impo rt of t he t est at or 's wo rd s, t o a dd t er ms and pro vi sions, o rt o o t he rwis e r efo rm t he will" )
. Be ca us e h e c ar r ied o ut t he dis po sit io ns in t he will, Lo uis contends, he can

not be li abl e for breach

of f iduc ia ry duty based upon an

alle ged agreem

ent that
wascontrar

y to the wi l l
. Al thoughthe

l eg al pri nc i ple L oui s c i

tesi s c orr ec t, h

i s a pp l i ca ti on of i t to thi s c as e is n

ot. Lo uis's fiduciar y dut ies as e xecu t or flowe d t o t hos e who wer e bene ficiaries o f the wil l a nd i ncl uded t he dut y to pr op er ly carr y out t he pr ovisio ns of the wi l l
. In re E st at e o f Lis , 365 Ill . App. 3d 1, 9-10 (2006 ). Georg e's will

bequeathed t o Lo uis t

he " as se t s o f Sun

ri se H ome s." 1 How ever, i t did n ot mentio n, nor di

d i t gi ve Loui s, Ge orge' s stock i

n Su nrise H ome s. S h ar es of

sto ck are un i ts ofNo. 2-- 09--0439

-12-

o wn er ship of a corpo ration (805 ILCS 5/1. 80 (West 2008)); once t he y hav e b ee n iss ue d a nd ar e h eld by a shareh older, they

are not t he sam

e as the asse

ts of a co rp orat ion (se e Pe o ple v. Ro se hill Cem etery Co. , 37 1 I ll. 5 10 , 51 5 ( 19 39 ) ( an int er es t in c o r po r at e p r o pe r t y is not

the s am e as a sh are of st o ck in t he co r

po r at io n) )
. No rdi d t he wil l mak e a ny s pe cific beque st of G eo rg e's sha re of t he ot her busi ness es he owned with Louis. Thus, Geo rge's ownership and m anagemen t interest s in

those busi ness es were p art of

the res i due of the e state, an

d were to be distri

bute d un der the wi l l 's resi duary cl ause, 50% t o N ancy, 25% t o t he t ru st for t he childr en fro m Geo rg e's first marr iage, and 2 5% t o t he trust f orDa nie lle a nd Ma r iss a. Ho we ve r , in t he fina l inve nt o ry, L o uis st at ed t ha t Ge o r ge 's s t o ck in Sunrise Homes h ad been dis t r ibu t ed t o himse lf, in

co nt ra vent ion o f the re sidua ry claus e. No r d id t he fi nal in ven to ry ment ion Ge or ge's ow ner ship inte re st s in the ot her business es, altho ugh, unde r t he t er ms of the wi

ll , they sho uld have be en dist ribut ed via t he r esidu ar y clause. Acco rd ingly, even if the brot hers' agreem

ent had n ever be en consi

dered by the trial court , there was cl ear evi

dence that Lo uis breach ed hi s f i duc i ary duty asexecutor

to ca rry o ut t he ex pr es s p r o visio ns o f t he will, as we ll as his f i duci ary duty as tru stee o f the chi ldren' s trust s to sec ur e fo r t hem the pr op er t y that sho uld have form ed the res of thei

r trusts. Moreov er, Lo uis ow ed N ancy and t he childre n (t hro ugh t heir t ru st s)- -t hos e who , u nder t he will, together h

eld what ha

d f orme rl y be en George 's share of the own ersh i p of the b usi ne sse s--a f i du ci ar y du ty asa c orporateof

f i cer of Rai nbowInstalla

tions an d Sunri se Homes , and as a partner with them in 710 Bu i l di n g P ar tn er sh i p. T h i s d uty re qui re d L ouis " to exerc i se

the hi ghes t de gre e of h on esty and g oo d fait h in t he de ali ngs a nd in handling o f business a sset s, t her eby pr ohibit ing enhanc ement of [his] personal in terests at the

ex pe ns e of the i nte res ts of the en terpri se " or of

ot her stockh old ers or pa rtners . Hags

hena s v . Gay

l ord , 199 Ill . App. 3d 60, 71 ( 199 0) ( own er of 50%ofNo. 2-- 09--0439

-13-

t he stoc k i n a cl ose corp orati on o we s t his d ut y, ju st as a p ar t ne rin a pa r t ne r ship would). It is perha ps debatabl e whether t his d ut y re qu ire d L o uis t o ho no rhis o r al b uy- se ll agreem ent wi th George after Geo rg e's de ath

(al thou gh the term s of t he ag r ee men t we r e s uc h t ha t it wa s e xa ct ly such a dea

th that t he par t ies inte nded wo uld t rigg er t he o bligat ions o f the sur viving par t y to per for m). T her e is no dou b t, h owev er , that L ouis' s d uty t o ex er cis e " t he hig he st de gr ee o f ho ne st y and go o d fa it h" in his dealin gs wit h t he other sha

rehold ers or pa rtners , vi z. , N ancy and t he childr en, proh i bi ted hi m f rom asse rt ingco nt r o l o ve rt he ir share of the b usi ne sse s wi thout com

pensati ng th em . Thus, the evi

dence
su pp ortsthe trial

court 's f in din g that Lo uis br ea ch ed his fiduciar y dut ies in this r esp ect as w ell. We find n o er ror i n th e tr i al cou rt' s dete rmi nat ion t hat Lo uis bre ache d his fiduciar y dut ies t ow ar d t he plai ntif f s. T imeline ss o f Br ea ch o f Or al C o nt r ac t Cla im In count IV of her

fi fth am ended com

pla in t, fil ed on May

18, 2007, Na nc y fo rt he firs t t ime asserted a cl ai

m that Loui s had b

reached thei

r oral contract t hat was alle ge dly fo rmed sho r t ly after Geo rg e's death
. (The clai m was als o r ais ed in t he ame nd ed int er ve ning co mpla int filed o n t he sa me date.) Louis a

tt acked t his c laim on two grou nds: tha t the cl ai m wa s b arred

by the sta tute of li mi tat ions, and that the oral contract ne ve rex ist ed
. T he t r ial c o ur t he ld t ha t t he cla im w as t imel y, and t ha t t he o r al c o nt r ac t ex ist ed un de rt he t er ms that Nancy descri bed i n he r testimony

. Onappeal Loui s ch al l engesboth d

eterm i na tions, b egi

nn i ng w i th the tim el i ne ss of the c l ai m . The trial court noted t ha t , un de rI llino is law, a claim for breach of an unwri

tt en contract must be brought withi

n f iv e years of the dat e on which the clai m accrued. 735 ILCS 5/ 13--20 5 (West 2008)
. Louis a

rgued, and the trial

court agreed, that th e l

ate st d ate o n w hic h N an cy's cla im co uld have accrued was Fe

bruary 15, 2002. The

tria l court obs erved th at, "[b ]y that t im e[,] t he b usi ness esNo. 2-- 09--0439

-14-

had re ceived all of t he insur ance benefit s and t he final acco unt ing sho uld have dis cl osed that t hey had been pai d to Lou" and that Louis was abl e to honor hi s agreem

ent wi th Nancy at that p oint but chose not to do so. Howev er, the tria l court f ound th at Nan cy 's clai m re gardin g Loui s's br eac h of t he contract wit h he rwa s " de r iva t ive " o f t he bu y-s ell agree men t betwe en the b rothers , and theref

ore was su fficie nt ly

cl ose l y re l ate d to th

e ti mel y pl ed al l eg ati ons r e ga r din g t he br o t he r s' a gr ee men t t ha t it "rel ated ba

ck " to h er i ni ti al as sertion of a cl ai m f or breach of the b

rot hers' agreem ent, which occurred wit hin fi ve y ears af ter t he estate cl osed. See 735 ILCS 5/2--616(b) (West 2008). We review de novo a trial cou rt' s dete rm i n ati on th at a claim pled o ut side t he ordinary li mi tations peri od "relates ba

ck" t o a p r ev io us ly filed cla im
. Port er v. Decatur Mem orial Hospital , 227 Il

l . 2d 343 , 353 (2 008). Th e c orre ctn

es s of the tri al cou rt' s a ppl i ca ti on of t he "r elat ion bac k" d oc t rine is no t en t ire ly cl ear. In order t o r ela t e b ac k, a n ew cla im mus t ar ise fr o m t he "s ame transaction or occurrence" as t he cl ai m asser t ed e ar lier. 7 35 I LCS 5/ 2- -6 16( b) ( West 200 8) . T he r equ irement s o f sect ion 2
- - 616 (b) of the Code of

Ci vi l Proc ed ure are to be constru ed l i be ral l y , an d " the ne w al l eg ati ons ne ed not b e b as ed on th e s am e s pe ci f i c f ac ts of the prior allegations." Port er , 227 Ill . 2d at 354. Howev er, t he defen dant mus t have recei

ved f ai r notice of t he su bst ance of t he new c laim within the lim itat ions pe riod o n t ha t cla im, a nd t he ea r lier all egat ions mus t be su ffi cient t o ha ve dir ect ed t he de fendant 's atte n ti on to the f acts th at f orm th e b asis of the n ew cl ai m . Port er , 227 Ill . 2d at 35 5. "[A] n amendment whi

ch states an en

tirel y n ew and distin

ct clai m f or reli ef b ased

o n c o mple t ely

different f ac ts wil l n ot relate back." Port er , 227 Il l
. 2d at 359 . I n Port er , t he su pr eme co ur t ado pt ed t he
su fficie nt ly-c lo se - r ela t io nsh ip test and ruled that "a n ew cl ai m wi l l b e c on si dere d to have aris en out of th e s am e transa cti on or oc cu rre n ce an d w i l l re l ate back i f the n ew alle gations as

compared

wi thNo. 2-- 09--0439

-15-

t he timel y f il ed all egations show t hat the events alleged were close in tim e and sub je ct matter and l

ed to the same i

nj ury." Port er , 227 Il

l . 2d at 36 0. Here, t he t imely

fil ed p leading s allege d t ha t Geo rg e and Lo uis had an o ra l cont ra ct dat ing f rom 19 85 th at pro vided t hat , u po n t he de at h of e ither of t hem, t he su rvivo r w ou ld buy o ut t he dec ede nt 's hei

rs using i nsu rance pr oc eed s. H ow ever , t her e wa s no claim relat ed t o, or even a ny men ti on o f, an oral c o ntract formed i n 2000 be

tween Louis

and Nan cy . Al though the two o ral agreem en ts co ncer ned t he sa me subjec t matt er (t he insur ance pr oc eed s and t he o wner ship o f the bus i ne sse s), the

y i nv ol ve d di f f ere nt p arti esan d took place at dif

ferent times
. Th

us , Na nc y's cl ai m f or breach of he r o ra l agr eement wit h Lo uis re st s o n different fact s t han h er ear lier cla im, a nd it is de b ata b l e w h eth er i t pa ss es th e s uf f i ci en tl y-c l ose -re l ati

on sh i p te st. Howev er, we may affirm on a ny

ba si s ap peari ng i n the rec ord. Cit y o f Ch ica go v. RN Re alt y, L.P. , 357 Ill . A

pp. 3d 3 37, 344

(20 05) . Un

de r th e " di sc ove

ry rul e," a p arty

's ca us e of ac ti on is he ld to have accrued "when

t he pa r t y kn o ws o rr ea so na bly shoul d kn

ow of a n i nj ury and tha t the i nj ury was wrongfull

y caused." Clay v. Kuhl , 189 Il l . 2d 603 , 608 (2 000). Th e di scovery

ru l e a pp l i es to act ions involving"tort , to rt arisi ng f rom contract, o r ot her breac h of contr actual duty." Hermi tage Corp . v . Con

tractors A

dj us tmen t Co. , 16 6 I ll. 2 d 7 2, 79 ( 19 95 )
. Alt ho ug h w he t he ra p ar t y's c laim
was fil ed w ithin t he appli

cable li mi tat ions peri od after she di scovered her cause o f ac t io n is g en er ally resolved asa q ue sti on of f act, it may

be resol ved as a questi on of law when the facts are undi sputed
and the outcome i s cl ear. Cl ay , 198 Il

l . 2d at 60 9-10. Here, our r ev iew o f t he r ec o r d s ho ws t ha t Na nc y's c laim f or b re ach of h er oral ag re em en t wi th Lo uis accrued, n

ot in Feb ruary 2002 w hen the estate cl

osed, b ut i n A pril 2003, when

she f irst recei ved inf ormation that Louis

had al ready rec ei

ved the i nsuran ce proceeds. Al

though the fi

nalNo. 2-- 09--0439

-16-

i nv en tory fo rt he es t at e d isc lo se d t ha t Lo uis had co nveyed t o himself his dea d br ot her 's shar es in t he busi ness es, Nancy

testifi ed that she bel

ie ved that the i

nsuran ce pay out was st ill

being disp ut ed a nd tha t Loui s w oul

d honor his ag reem en t wi th her. The f

in al in ven to ry di d not mention the in

surance pro ceeds, bu t it did no t ne ed t o : in su r an ce pr o ce ed s a r e p aid dir ec t ly to the designated

be ne f i ciary and there f ore gen eral l y do not pas s throug

h pr obate. Bergheger , 258 Ill . App. 3d at 416. T he r e is
no evi dence that Nanc

y h ad any reason to suspect t hat Louis h ad alr ea dy r ecei

ved the i nsuran ce proceeds unti

l she was told th i s i n A pril 2003. Thus , appl

i cation of the d i scovery rule h ere in volv es no dis puted facts an

d dem onstrates t hat Nancy

's cl ai m f or breach of h

er oral contract with Louis was f i l ed wi thi n f i ve years of the date on

whi ch her clai m accrued. At oral argum

ent, Louis argued that

Na nc y sho uld ha

ve kn own tha t Loui s w oul

d n ot hon or t he ir agr eement to pay

her the i nsuran ce proceeds when

she was to ld b y Th omas Breen

(the att orney for George's estate) that t he i nsuran ce pr o ce ed s w o uld be pa id to Loui s (thr

ough S unr

i se H ome s), not to her. Breen testif

ie d that he spoke with Nan cy about the estat e twice. The f irst occasion was at a Septemb er 2000 mee ti ng of allof t he he ir s a nd leg at ee s u nd er Ge o r ge 's wil l. Lo ui s, Na nc y, Nancy 's b rot her or brother-in-l

aw, and George's two chi ldren from hi s f irst m arriage werepr es en

t. At t he meet ing, a cco rd ing t o B re en: "We went through the wil l. A nd at that t ime I ind ica t ed t ha t t he insu r an ce wo uld ult imat ely go t o Lo u thro ugh the Sunrise--that he would get t he assets of Sunrise." How ev er , th i s i n f orm ati on wa s c on siste

n t wi th Nancy 's b elie f t hat she a nd Lo uis had an ag re ement and t hat when L ou is rec eived t hem he wo uld pa y her t he insu r an ce pr o ce ed s inreturn f or her s ha re o f t he bu sine ss es . T hu s, t his fir st mee t ing did no t pu t Na nc y o n no t ice t ha t Lo uis di d n ot i n ten d to pay h er th e p roc ee ds . Th

e s ec on d oc ca si

on wa s a pp rox i mate ly one y ea r later, i n A ugu st orNo. 2-- 09--0439

-17-

Septembe r2001, when at Loui s's reques t Breen m et with Nan

cy and h er brother to go over t he fi nal i nv en tory with h er. Breen testif

ie d that Nanc y became u pse t and w alked ou t a sho rt t ime after he began go ing o ver t he invento ry. B re en did no t t est ify as t o w hat he to ld Na

ncy bef ore she wal

ked out. By t he t ime o f t his s ec o nd mee t ing , Lo uis had r ece ived t he i ns uran ce proc eeds , but the rec ord does not re flect t hat Bre en disc lose d t his fact t o N ancy. Rat her , B re en st at ed t hat he did not discuss t he insura nce p ro cee ds w ith N ancy. Thu s, t his seco nd m ee tin g di d n

ot prov i de

Na n cy wi th i nf orma tion that Loui s had b reache d the i

r agre em en t. The only evidenc e in the re co rd re gar ding when Nancy fi rst knew or should h

ave kn own about Lo uis's br ea ch o f t he ir

agr eement was her t est imony t ha t We as er t o ld h er in Ap r il 20 03 t ha t Lo uis had al ready received the proceeds of the i nsuran ce poli ci es. Louis obj ected to this testim ony as he ar sa y, but the trial

co ur t ru led ( co rr ect ly, in our view) t hat t he t est imony as t o We ase r's st at ement was no t he ar sa y bec au se it wa s o ffer ed no t t o es t ab lish t ha t Lo uis ha d in fact received the proceeds, bu t to sh owtha t Na nc y ha d n oti ceof Lou i s' s b rea ch asof the da te of that con versati on. Kincaid v. Am es Depart men

t St ores, Inc. , 283 Ill . App. 3d 5 55, 566 (19 96)(a s

tate men t tha t i s u se d to s how proof of noti ceto the he are r, n ot truth of the substan

ce o f t he st at eme nt , is no t he ar sa y). Lo uis did not su bmit any

contrary evi

dence to show that Nancy knew or should have known of Louis' s breach at an earl ie r date. Nancy

fi rst added a clai

m f or t he b reach of thi

s agreem ent in May 2007, we ll wit hin the f i ve -year statute of l

i m i tations on th

e cl ai m . Thus , we h

old that the clai m wasnot un

tim el y . T he E xist en ce o f t he Or al Ag r ee men t Be t we en Na nc y and Lo uis Lo uis argues that the trial

court 's f in din g that he breach

ed an oral agr eement be t we en himse lf and Nanc y was ag ainst t he manifest weight of t he evidenc e. He a rg ues t hat , a ltho ugh he ad mit t ed ly spoke wit h Nanc y with t he inte nt of r eac hingan agreement wi th her about contr ol of the busi nesses,No. 2-- 09--0439

-18-

they ul t imat ely did not rea ch an y ag re em en t. A s n oted ab ov e, th e ex i ste

n ce of a c on tra ct a n d i ts t er ms ar e qu est ions o f fact t o be det er mined by t he t r ier o f fac t , an d w e w ill not re ver se u nless t he trial co ur t 's f i ndi ngs areagai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Hedl und & Ha ndley , 37 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 205. In sup po rt of his ar gument , Lo uis st at es t hat his acco unt of t he t er ms of t he ag re ement they dis cussed diffe r s fr o m Na nc y's a cc o un t , an d fr o m t his h e a rgue s th at, as a matter of l

aw, the tri al

court co uld n ot h av

e f oun d th e m eetin g o f t he mind s ne ce ss ar y t o fo rm a c o nt r ac t . Ho we ve r , simp ly because t he parties to an

agreem ent now recall the terms of that agreem ent dif feren tly does not mean that the re was no meetin

g of the mi

nds. Where the parties have agreed on the essential terms, such
as price a nd the i tems to be del

iv ered for that price , a con tract ha s b een

f orme d. Jannu sch v. Naff zi ger , 3 79 I ll. App. 3d 3 81, 386 (2 008 ). "It is not nece ssar y that t he pa rt ies shar e a s ubject ive unde rst anding as to the ter ms of the contract ; the part ies' conduct may

indicat e an a gr eement t o t he term s." Jann

usch , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 38 6. H ere, th e ev i den ce re ga rdi n g th e p ar ti es ' con du ct s uppor ts t he co nclusio n t hat t he parties agreed on t he ite ms to be co nveyed ( Nanc y's inherite d int er est s in the bu sine ss es ) an d t he pr ice t o be pa id ( t he insu r an ce pr o ce ed s)
. Lo uis had Pal adi no create a bu y-s ell agr eement co nt aining

t he se t er ms s ho r t ly af

t er his mee t ing wit h N an cy. In t he final invento ry o f the estate, he liste d t he busi

ness in terests as hav

in g been dis tributed to him

self, an d Nancy (who bel ie ved that the pay

out on the in

surance pol

ic ie s h ad n ot yet o cc ur r ed ) did no t o bje ct . Alt ho ug h Lo uis testifi ed that he had anticipated that he would ulti mately retain the insurance pro ceeds, he statedthat t his wa s b ec au se

of a s ep arate

verbal agreem ent that he clai

me d to have m

ade with Na

ncy in whi ch she would trade the in

surance proceeds f

or clea r ti tl e to 445 No rt h Elizabet h. T his te st imony
su pp ortst he in

feren ce that, at least in

itially , both parties contempl

ated t hat Nanc y wou ld re ceive t heNo. 2-- 09--0439

-19-

in surance procee ds i

n return f or gi vi ng u p he r i nh eri ted i ntere sts i n the busi ne sse s. Tak

en together, t his evi dence was

suf fi ci ent to suppo rt t he trial cour t's c oncl

usi on that a meeti

ng of the m

in ds
occurre d. Lo uis also ar gue s t hat t he alle ged agreem ent was not support ed by

any consideration, but

t he evi dence sho ws t ha t Na nc y ag r ee d t o giv e u p, an d d id g ive up , he rst o ck an d o wn er ship int er es t s in the th ree b usi ne sse s at i ssue. Louis s

uggests that t he stock was worthless because , under

t he will, he ow ned a ll the as se t s o f Su nr ise Ho mes ( alt ho ug h, ag ain , it is dou b tf ul th at G eor

ge h ad au th ori ty to trans f er corporate

ass ets un der h i s wi l l). There wasev

i den ce th at G eor

ge ' s ow n er sh i p i n terests were wor th $6 00 , 00 0, ho we ve r , an d L o uis did not introduce any evidence that t hey

were wo rthless. Ac cordi ngl y , we re j ect this arg

um en t as we l l
. Fin ally, Louis c ontends thatt her e wa s insufficient evi dence of the oral agreem

ent's ex is tence and i ts terms. H owe ve

r L oui s te sti

f i ed tha t he went to N an

cy 's hom e to t alk with her bec aus e he t hou ght t ha t t he y needed to hav e s o me k indo f ag r ee men t ; t ha t he br o ug ht t he bla nkbu y-s ell agr eement beca use he thought it could be us ed for an ag re eme nt bet we en t hem; a nd t hat aft er he le ft Nanc y'shomehe we nt t o his o ffice an d h ad Pa lad ino t ype in t er ms s ho win g t ha t Na nc y wo uld exch angeher share of the three businesses for ins urance pro ceeds to talin

g $610,0 00 (albei

t via a f alse "contract" between hi

ms el f an d George). Nancy testi fi

ed co nsist ent ly that Lo uis and she ag re ed to trade Geo rg e's sha re of t he bus inesses for t he insur anc e pr oceeds. This testim ony a nd the wri

tt en agr eement that Lo uis h

ad Paladi no creat e both suppo rt t he i nf erence that Lo uis agreed to those t er ms and was willi

ng t o p ut t hem in writ ing. Lo uis ar gue s t hat t he pot entia l agreem ent was that Nancy
wo uld trad

e h er p ortion of

the bu si ne ss esf orcl ea r ti tl e to 4 45 Nor

th Elizabet h, a nd as ser t s t hat t he in surance proceeds were neve

r part o f the dea

l. However, the trial

court specifi

cally found thatNo. 2-- 09--0439

-20-

"L ou' s a ss er

ti on th at h e reach ed an ag re em en t wi th Nanc y to t ra de he r int er est s in the bu si ne ss f or cl ear t itle o n t he h ous e is n

ot b el i ev ab l e. " W e def er to thi s cre di

b i l i ty as se ssmen

t. Matchen , 37 2 I ll. App. 3d at 946. For all of these reasons, the trial

court 's f in din g of an oral

contract between Nancy
and Louis i s n

ot agai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Nancy 's Testi mony and the Dead-Ma

n's Act At trial , the trial

court permi

tt ed Na n cy to tes ti f y to a c on v er sa ti on sh e c l ai med to have had wi th George in J

une 2000, i

n wh ic h he to ld h er "about the insurance pol

ic y tha t he had o ut wit h him and Lou i e a n d th at i t wa s a b uy /s el l , that h e w oul d- -I woul d g et th e h ous e a n d th e insur ance and Lo uis wo uld g et t he bus iness bec aus e t hey didn't want t he wives t o be messing wit h, yo u kno w, t he bus i ne ss." Lo uis asserts that this testim ony v iolated section 8--201 of the Code of Ci vi l Procedure, popul arl y kn own as th e D ead- Ma

n ' s A ct. That statu

te prov i de s th at: "In t he t rial o f any act ion in which anypa rty suesor de f

en dsasthe repres en tati ve of
a deceased person *** n

o adverse party or person di rectly in terested in the action sh all be allowed to tes ti f y on h i s or h er own b eh al f to any conversation with the deceased ***[ .]" 735 ILCS 5/8--2 01 (W

est 200 8). Fur t her , t he sta

tute provi de s th

at " pe rs on

dire ct ly i nt er est ed in t he ac t ion" d oe s no t include a nyone who is int er es t ed so lely

as an ex ecutor, trust ee, or sim

il ar fi duci ary ca paci ty. 735 ILCS 5/8--201(c) (We st 2008 ). In ru ling on Lo uis's mo t ion in lim ineto ba rt his t es t imo ny, t he t r ial c o ur t he ld that t he DeadMan 's Act preven

ted Nancy

from off erin g the testim

ony on h er own beh

al f an d al so in her role a s ad m i ni stra toro f Da nie lle's es t at e ( be ca us e N an cy w o uld inhe r it whatever was recove red for Dani

elle , through th e l

aw s of i n testacy ). Th e tr i al cou rt f oun d, h owev er , that N a nc y had no int er es t inNo. 2-- 09--0439

-21-

Mar issa's po t en t ial r ec o ve ry (w hic h w o uld go i nto a t r us t t o be di st r ibu t ed t o Ma r iss a a t he rmajo r it y) and t hat she t her efo re co uld o ffer t he t est imony in her ro le as next friendof Mari ssa. The court st ated that it wo uld consider t he testimony only "for that li

mi ted pu rpo se." Had Nancy been sui ng o nly in her capacity asMariss a's ne xt friend, t he t rial co ur t 's ru ling
wo uld ha ve be en co rr ec t , be ca us e N an cy h ad n o di rect i ntere st i n M ari ssa's

recovery . Howev

er, Mari ssa's i ntere st was

paral l el to Nancy's , be caus e the

clai m s b ei ng asse rted wer e com mon to b oth of t hem. T hus, Nanc y's per so nal inter est in the o ut co me c o uld not be "se gr ega t ed" fro m Marissa 's i ntere st, an

d Nan cy 's testi mony vi ola ted the proscri pti ons of the D ead-Man 's

Act. Neve rt heless, we find t hat t he tria l court's error was ha rm l ess . The tria l court i tself appe ars to have reconsidered

its p os itio n re gar ding t his te st imony, as it did no t mentio n t he testi mon y i n i ts Ju ly 18 , 20 08 , find ing s o f fac t o rit s r ulin g. Whe n Lo uis ar gu ed in hi s postt rial

m otion that the court had m i sa pp l i ed th e D ead- Ma

n ' s A ct, the trial

court stated t hat

the test im

ony "was a n

onfactor in

[its] de cis io n" an d t ha t it "did not consider that testim ony a t all in reachi ng [i ts] decisi on." Louis argues t hat t he er ro r c ou ld no t have been h armless, be ca

us e the te sti

mony wa s th e on l y di rect ev i de nc e of a buy- sell agr eement bet wee n t he br ot her s. A p ar t y need no t pr ove her case us in g direct evi dence, however. Kosch

v. Mon roe , 10 4 Il

l . A pp. 3d 1 085 , 10 91 ( 198 2) ( "G en era l l y sp ea ki ng , an y f ac t or is sue ca n b e p roved

b y ci rc um sta n ti al ev i den ce a s we l l as d i rect ev i den ce" ); Il l i noi s Pattern

Jury Instruct ions, Ci

vi l , No. 3.04 (Supp. 20 09 ) ( "C irc ums t an t ial e vid en ce is e nt it led t o t he sa me consi de rati on as any ot her type of

evi dence"). A s we hav

e hel d, there was am

ple ci rcumstantial evi dence of t he br ot her s' ag re ement t o s upp or t t he t rial co ur t 's fi ndi ngs as to the existencean d t er ms of that agreem

ent. We theref

ore fi nd that any

error in the trial

co ur t 's ap plicat ion o f the Dea d- Man's Act was h

arm l ess and dec l i ne to rever se on

thi s groun

d.No. 2-- 09--0439

-22- Na n cy ' s F ai l ur e to O b j ec t to the C l osi

n g of Ge org e' s E sta

te Lo uis next ar gue s t hat Na nc y wai ved h er righ t t o seek recovery of

the in surance proceeds b ecause sh

e di d n ot obj ec t to the

f i na l i nv en tory or cl osi ng of Ge orge 's es tate . How ever , hi s ar gument i s p rem

i se d on the assertion that the wi

ll was Nanc y' s sole s ource o f leg al r igh t s a ga inst him, because he

di d n ot breach an y f i duc i ary duty ororal contract wi

th res pect to he r. As we h

ave al ready rejected these underl

yi ng contenti ons, we like

wis e reje ct this argum

ent. Moreo ver, wai

ver i s an affirmative act tha

t is an i nten tion al rel i nqu i sh men t of a k nown ri ght. Si wek v . W h i te , 388 Ill . App. 3d 1 52, 157 -5 8 ( 200 9) . Lo uis claims t hat t he insu r an ce pr o ce ed s p as se d t o him under the wi

ll , but there is no evi dence that Nanc

y kn ew that those proceeds had al ready b een pai

d out at the time

that t he est at e clo sed , a s Lo uis did no t t ell Nancy t his and he di d not li st the insurance proceedsin the fi nal inv en t o ry. Thu s, t her e is no evidenc e t hat Nanc y intent ionally relinq ui shed her righ

t t o t hose procee ds wh

en she f ail ed to obj ect to the cl

osi ng of the e state. Lou i s' s En ti tl em en t to a S etof

f f or 4 45 Nor

th El iza b eth In hi s a ns wers to the

va riouscom pl ai nts , Lou i s a ss er t ed t he a ffirmat ive d efe nse o f se t o ff, alleging th at h

e sh oul d r ec ei v e a setof f f or th e p orti on of 44 5 N orth

El iza b eth th at w as con v ey ed to Nancy in March 2002, to be applie d agai nst any j udgm en t rend ered i n N ancy 's f avor. The tri

al court ruled tha t he wa s n ot en ti tl ed to s uc h a setoff

because the propert y h

ad been transferred to Nancy ye ars earlie

rand thus h

e no l onger possessed

a l eg al ri gh t th at h e c oul d s et of f ag ai n st a j udgm en t. As t he tri al

cou rt st at ed, "Ho weve r a dmirable Lo u's a ct ions w er e at t he t ime [in tr ansfer ring t he pr operty to Nancy

], he cannot no w clai

m i t as a set -off agai

nst Nancy' s clai

m." Louis ci

te s no au t ho r it y, and we k now of no ne , pe rmit t ing a p ar t y t o se t o ff ag ain st a p r es en t cla im a be ne fit
conv ey ed y ears earl i er. Accordi

ngl y , we f i nd n o fl aw i n the tri al court's reas oni ng.No. 2-- 09--0439

-23-

Lo uis al so prot ests the trial court 's determ

in ation that the tran sf

er of the prop erty f rom Sunrise Ho mes t o N ancy wa s a g ift for which Na ncy paid no co nsider at ion. Instead, he ar gue s, t he pr operty was transferred

in exch ange f or Nancy's surren

der of the i

nsuran ce proceeds and al

l of her in heri ted inter est s in the bu sine ss es . Ho we ve r , t he t r ial c o ur t sp ec ifica lly fo un d t ha t t his ex pl an ati on was n ot cred

i b l e, an d, as w e p re v i ous l

y h el d, t h i s f i n di n g i s n ot a gainst the m anifest weight of t he evi dence. Matchen , 372 Ill . App. 3d at 946. We a l so not e t hat , a ltho ugh L ou is claims that t he agr eement re ga

rdi n g th e p rop er ty was bet wee n Nanc y and

hi msel f, i t was Sunrise Homes, not Louis, that transferred the property to Nancy , and there i s no ev id ence that Louis personally

contributed anything to ward this

transfer, al

thoughLou

i s w asthe rec i pien t of bot h t he bus iness int er est s and t he in surance pro ceeds. Because t he evi dence does not sho w t hat t he t ra nsfer w as in re t ur n for any be ne fit t o Su nr ise Ho mes , we ag r ee wit h t he t r ial c ourt 's det ermi nation tha

t t he transf

er lac ked
cons i derati

on an d m ust b e se en

as a gi f t. T he Un jus t E nr ich men t Cla im Lo uis make s t wo co nt ent ions with res pect to the trial

cou rt' s j udg men t i n Nan cy 's f av or on her unj ust enrichm

ent cl ai m. F irst, he contends

that t he ev

ide nce di d not show that he wa s u nju st ly enriched orthat Nancy

was i mpove rish ed b y h i s a cti on s, b ec au se

h e s i m pl y di str i b ute d G eor

ge ' s e sta te and asse t s ac co rd ing t o t he will. We have re ject ed t his co nt ention a

bove and ne ed no t dis cu ss it further h ere. Lou

i s' s s ec on d a

rgum en t h as m oremeri t, however. He argues that no u njust enr ichment
can be f ound w here the plai ntif f ha s an adeq uate remedy

at l aw, su ch as an ac t io n f or brea ch of
con tra ct. W e rev

i ew th i s pur el

y l eg al argu men t de novo . People v . Brown , 225 Ill . 2d 188, 1 98 (2007 ).No. 2-- 09--0439

-24-

Louis' s argum

ent is correct : "unj ust enri chm

ent is based on an

impli ed c ont ra ct , a nd

it does not apply where there is a specif ic contract that g overns the relationshi ps o f t h e parti

es." Swedis hA me rican Ho sp it al As s'n o f Ro ck fo r d v
. I llino is Sta te Medical

Inter-ins urance Exch

ange , 395 I ll. Ap p. 3d 80 , 108 (2 009). Here, we have aff irm ed the trial

court 's f in din gs that an o ra l agr eement exi stedbetween

Nancy and Loui s, and i

ts judgm ent in Nancy 's f avor on her breach

of contract cla im agains t Lo uis . W e t her efo re vac at e t he t ria l co ur t 's ju dg ment in Na ncy's favor on her un just
en ri ch men t cl ai m . Am endm ent of the Co mpl

ain ts and the Award o f Prejudgm ent Inter est Foll owing the is suance of

the trial court 's m em orandum opi

nion on Jul

y 18, 2008, i

n wh ic h it hel d that Nancy

had proved three of h

er cla i ms ( fo r breach of

fi duci ary duty, breach of

oral
con tra ct, and u njust enr ichment) and e nt er ed jud gment in her favo r o n t ho se cla im s, Nancy fi le d postt rial mo t io ns in wh ich she dir ec t ly so ught pr ejudg ment int er est , a nd also so ught leave t o a mend her compl ai nts to seek such i

nterest . Nancy ci

ted t wo bases for her request : the Int erest Act (815 ILCS 205 /2 (West 2008)), whi ch perm its the i mposi tion of statuto ry prej udgme nt in terest un de r ce r t ain enum

erated circum

stances; and the trial

court 's po wer to en

ter a n e qui tab l e a wa rd of pr ejudg ment i

n terest. On

February

17, 200 9, t he t rial co ur t held t hat an aw ar d o f pre judg ment in terest waswarra

nted beca us e t he insu r an ce pr o ce ed s r igh t fully be lo ng ing t o Na nc y had be en in Lo uis's ha nds f or s evera l yea rs , an d N an cy sh oul d b e c om pe ns ate d f

orhis us e o f t ha t mo ne y. The trial court then

stated t hat it would pe

rmi t Nancy to am end h er complai

nts to incl ude a re que st f

or such int er es t . Fina lly, it st at ed t ha t it was awa rd ing pr ejudg ment int er est at t he pr ime rat e fro m the da te that the

estate c l osed, a

nd i t di rected the a ttorneys f or the pa rtie s to perf

orm the neces sar y calcu latio ns of

that am ount an d prep arean

appropriateorde

r. Th e tri al cou rt en tere d that ord

er onNo. 2-- 09--0439

-25-

March 24, 2009. In hi s f

in al argumen t o n appeal, Lo uis co nt en ds t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in per mitt ingNa

n cy , a f ter th e j udgm

en t, to a men d h er com pl ai n ts to add a r equ est for pr ejudg ment i n terest. However, Louis does n ot directl y c hal le nget he t rial co ur t 's ru ling

that p rejudgmen

t interest shoul d be awar ded, or the am

ount of that i ntere st. As our supreme court has expl ain ed, prejudgment in

terest may

be awarded in two instances. In actions at law, prejudgment in terest is recoverable only under the Int erest Act or if the parties' agr eement provides

f or it. Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bossel ma n & Weaver , 222 Il

l . 2d 218 , 257 (2 006). How ever, f

orcau ses o f act ion so unding in equit y, " 't he allow ance of int er est lies within t he so und di screti on of the judge and i s all

owed where war ranted by equitabl e considerations.' " Tri -G , 22 2 I ll. 2d at 257, quo ting Cit y o f Sp r ing field v. Allp hin , 82 Ill . 2d 571, 579 ( 19 80 )
. As in o t he req uit ab le
cases , "[t] he

rati ona l e u nd erl y i ng an eq ui tab l e a wa rd of pre j udg men t i nte res t i n a ca se i nv ol vi ng a breach o f fidu cia ry du t y is to m

ake th e i n j ur ed pa rty com pl ete by f orci ng the f i duc i ary to ac cou nt f or pr of i ts and i nterest he gai

ned b y the use of the i

nj ured part y' s money ." In re Estate o f W ernick , 127 I ll. 2d 6 1, 87 ( 198 9) . T he t rial co ur t 's de term i na ti on that eq ui tabl e con siderati

ons s upport an awar d of pr eju dg men t int er es t will not be disturbed unlessi t is an abuse of d i scre tion
. Werni

ck , 127 Ill . 2d at 87. In this ca se, bot h base s for awa rd ing inte re st ar e pr ese nt beca use Nanc y pre vailed o n one cla im t hat so unde d in equ ity (t he br eac h of fiduc iary du t y claim ), and o ne claim based in law (t he cla im that Lo uis br ea ch ed his o r al a gr ee men t wit h he r )
. T he r e is so me sup po rt for t he view t hat t he trial co ur t base d it s aw ar d o f pre judg ment int er est on e quit able co nsider at ions, beca use in annou ncing it s de cis io n, t he co ur t st at ed t ha t it wa s g r an t ing int er es t at t he pr ime ra te, a rate t ha t is a va ilable o nly f orequi tabl e awa rds of i ntere st. See Werni

ck , 127 Ill . 2d at 88 (equity di ctates an award of in

terestNo. 2-- 09--0439

-26-

at the prim

e rate so t hat the i

nj uredpart y m

ay be made who le); cf. 815 ILCS 205/2 (West 2008) (p er mitt inginter est at t he ra te of 5% per year). We note, however, that Nancy states that interest at t he statutory

5% r at e w as ult imat ely

awarded (perhaps b ecause i n Feb ruary 2009 the pri

me rate was be lo w 5 % ) , an d t hu s it is possible to read the March 24, 2009, order from wh ic h Loui s appeal

ed as
awa rd ingi

n terest pu rsua n t to the In terest A ct. The or

der i tse l f doe s n ot i den ti f y wh i ch au th ori ty t he
awar d was ba sed upon. If t he i n terest wa s i

m pos ed pu rsua n t to the In terest A ct, it co uld ha ve be en so ug ht at an y t ime wh ile the c ase

waspen di ng b ef ore th e tr i al cou rt. Pr ejudg ment int er est need not be r equ est ed in t he
co mplaintin

order t o be recoverabl

e under the Interest Act; wh en the ev ide nce at trial

establ is hes that a part y is entitled to pr ejudgm ent interest unde r t he Int er est Act , a re que st for suc h inter est will be read in to the c om

p l ai nt. Keh oe v . Wi l dm

an , Ha rrol d, A l l en & D i xon, 387 Ill . App. 3d 454, 473 (2008 ); Boy

d v . Un i ted Fa rm Mu tua l Re i ns ura nc e C o. , 231 Ill . App. 3d 992, 1000 (19 92) ; Madi son Park Ba nkv. Fie ld , 64 Ill . App. 3d 838, 84 3 (197 8). Louis c ites two cases i n wh ic h courts held that pre j udg men t i nte res t wa s n ot re cov erab l e b ec au se

i t wa s n ot re qu ested

i n th e c om pl ai n t ( Gai ser v. Vil la ge o f Sk o kie , 271 Ill . App. 3d 85, 96 (1995), and Eng lemann v. Stan da rd M utua l In su ran ceCo. , 4 Ill . App. 3d 55, 57 (1972)), but bot h of thes e cases were de ci ded bef ore Keh oe , and nei

ther
co nt ains an

y di scus si on of the is sue. Thus, the f

act that t he com

pla in ts on fi le at t he t ime o f t r ial d id
no t co nt ain an

ex pl i ci t req ue st f or prej udg

men t i nte res t i s of no mom ent, and accordin

gly , the trial
co ur t 's deci si on to permi

t Nancy to fi le am ended complai

nts seeking such

in terest is at m

ost harml ess error. Moreov er, Nancy

points out that section 2--616(c) of the Code o f Ci vil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2--616(c) (West 200 8) ) p er mits plea dings t o be "amend ed a t any ti me, b ef oreor a f ter j udgm en t,No. 2-- 09--0439

-27-

to conform

the ple adi

ngs to the proo fs ," upon just t erms . In considerin g whether to permi

t such an amendment , t he t r ial c o ur t sho uld consider whether the am endm ent wi ll further the en

ds of j ustice, whet he rthe am

endm ent al ters the nature of the proo f requi red to defen

d agai nst the c laim, an d whether the opposing party

wil l b e surpris ed

or prej udiced. Am

erican National

Bank & Trust Co. of Chicag o v. Dozo ryst , 256 Il l . Ap p. 3d 67 4, 678- 79 (19 93). In addi tion, such a

n am endm ent ma y be allo we d o nly wh er e it is sup po rt ed bythe evi den ce. Vi l l ag e of W ad sw orth

v. Kerton, 311 Ill . App. 3d 829, 842 (2000) . The decision t o p er mit amendment of t he plea dings is w ithin t he t rial co ur t 's discr et ion, an

d w i l l be rev ers ed onl y f or an ab us e of that discre

tion
. Clax

to n v. Grose , 22 6 I ll. App. 3d 829 , 831 (1 992). Here, t he evide nce a t t rial sup po rt ed t he aw ar d o f pre judg ment int e re st , a nd allow ing t he amendment to add a

request for such in

terest fur t he r ed t he en ds o f jus t ice be ca us e it pr ev en t ed Lo uis f rom profi ting f rom his wrongful

reten tion of the i ns uran ce proc eeds

due to Nan

cy . Werni

ck , 127 I ll. 2d at 88. Mo re ove r, allowing t he amend ment d id no t alte r t he nat ur e o f the pr o o f ne ed ed at t r ial: pr ejudg ment int er es t is r ec o ve r ab le up on a sh owi n g th at th e op pos i n g p ar ty ha s breache d a f

i duci ary du ty and that such i

nterest is n

ecessary to ma ke the ben efi ci ary wh ole ( Werni

ck , 127 Il l . 2d at 86 -87), and th i s is e ss en

ti al l y th e s am e ev i den ce

th at N an cy wa s a l re ad y re qui re d to pre se

n t i n ord er to pr ove her cla im fo rbr ea ch o f fidu cia ry du t y and t ha t Lo uis wa s a lre ad y re qu ir ed to de f en d agai n st. Ac co r di ng ly, pe rmit t ing t he ame nd men t o f t he co mpla int s p r io rt o t r ial w o uld have a dde d no t hing to Louis' s burden of defen

din g hi msel f, and thus, the amendm

ent after t rial

did not prejudice Louis. Dozo ryst , 256

Ill . A pp. 3d a t 678 -79 ; s eealso In re

Joy Rec overy Technol ogy Corp. , 291 B.R. 111, 118 (Bankr. N.D. Ill . 2003) (where the cl ai ms ag ainst the d ef

endan ts i nc l uded bre ach of f i duci ary du t y, an d the d ef en da nts ' g ood f

ai th or l ac k there of

wa s th e p ri mary i ss uei n th e c as e, th e c onte nti onNo. 2-- 09--0439

-28-

that t hey "wo uld have someh ow defen ded the case di

ff erently had they known that Plai

ntif f i ntended to request prejudgm

ent in terest" had no meri

t). Fo r all of these reasons , the trial cou rt' s dec i si on to al l owNancy

to amen d the pleadin

gs to request prejudgmen

t interest was not an abuse of d iscre t ion. In summary, we a ffi

rm t he j udgm

en t of the ci rcui t court of Du Page Cou n ty wi th re sp ec t to its jud gment in favor of t he plaint iff s o n t heir claims for bre ach o f fi duc iary du t y and

breach of oral
con tra ct, an d we vacate t hat po rtion of the judgment fi ndi ng i n Nancy 's f avor o n her unj ust en ri ch men t cl ai m . A f f i rm ed i n pa rt a n d vac ate d i

n pa rt. O' MA LL EY an d JOR GENSEN , JJ., c oncu

r.